Tom Ellis?
He wasn’t trying to figure out how gravity works; he was conning religious and poor people into voting against their best interests. Candy from a baby. The genius part was not having any morals.
But Democrats are pro-choice so it’s not like they can ignore questions about abortion.
But what happens is, some Republican mouthpiece says that Dems are in favor of aborting 5 year olds or something. If you have a sense of healthy skepticism you read what the Dem actually said and realize it’s clickbait BS. However, the people who exaggerate, misconstrue and mislead (it’s really just lying) aren’t trying to convince those of us who are skeptical and think for ourselves. They don’t care about those who will actually read the whole article. Persuading people that what they already believe to be true is true is easy.
And you can’t just tell uneducated or naive voters that they are dummies because that will just make people mad. The problem is how do you educate people who aren’t aware of their lack of education without making them feel patronized or dumb? By education I mean in the context of how politics and news works. People don’t know the difference between commentary/opinion and news. They don’t look at all politicians as “them.” In other words, the relationship between citizen and politician should be a bit adversarial. The same people who say they are all crooks, will then add, “except for…” People don’t think hard enough about what they are told so even if something sounds ridiculous (if you pay attention), they think, “well, it sounds right.” Does anyone actually think Sanders is in favor of eugenics? That doesn’t sound like a complete lie or some misrepresentation of what he said? Critical thinking is not something we should expect from people and these pundits and strategists know that.
1 Like
While I haven’t found the Political Strategist I was looking for…going back and reading some on Jesse Helms was interesting to say the least…
Absolutely.
When a Democrat says, abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor, some Republican will respond with, they want post-birth murder. And people believe it. How can you even discuss an issue seriously when that is the climate surrounding it?
People don’t like being told who they have to like but they are OK with being told who to hate.
1 Like
It really wasn’t Tom Ellis?
Definitively a top strategist for both Reagan and Helms, no question…but not the person I was thinking about, @doogie…
Roger Stone, maybe?
Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke finally had the kind of night that showed why he’d once been seen as a phenom.
His biggest moment came when he forcefully argued for the mandatory buyback of assault-style firearms.
“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore,” he said.
I am glad you got your little moment in the spotlight, got some applause from the crowd. Feel good? So, here is the reality, little Socialist snowflake, I did not spent 14 years fighting our country’s enemies to come home to trash like you. You will never, ever, take anything from me, ever.
Since you have been stewing in the Socialist / Communist crock-pot, let me give some advise: Read an American history book, especially about the American Revolution and then follow up by reading the Constitution of the United States.
2 Likes
Thank God. Finally, some laws prohibiting using firearms against our fellow Americans. I always felt like murder should be illegal, but it seemed like I was in the minority and couldn’t get any laws passed to prohibit it. A real man of the people, that cockrider is.
2 Likes
“POP”! Goes another Dem…
Bye, bye, now…
There’s a school in a nearby city, an inner city, and they came up with a great solution for the problem of kids having difficulty following the rules: they decided not to have rules anymore. What could go wrong? And this is not some Onion article.
Another school, in the same city, had an 18 year old student bring a gun to school. He said he needed it for protection because he had been beaten up earlier that day. He arrived late to school, had some bruises and abrasions on his face, and apparently protocol is to search students’ bags when they are late; thus they found the gun. He is 18, an adult, and the gun was unregistered so he is facing a bunch of grown up charges. He has been suspended pending the expulsion process.
Many of the teachers think he shouldn’t be expelled because he had a good reason to have a gun and said they had no problem with him coming back to school and being in their classrooms. What these bleeding hearts fail to consider is what they are really saying. They are saying he was justified to be armed and therefore would have/could have been justified to use his gun. I mean, what’s the point of carrying if you can’t ever use it? They are saying an appropriate response to getting beaten up, or to prevent getting beaten up, is lethal force. Which brings up two questions: should kids be able to protect themselves from other kids with guns and, if so, then why not just allow all of the kids to bring guns to school?
It’s already illegal for people under 21 to own handguns. So, not really a conversation to be had there.
So the school has no rules? Is this a hypothetical? Whether the school had rules or not they are still within the borders of a city and state that have laws against assault.
Sounds like “could have.” That seems undeniably true.
Defense is a pretty good justification.
Not just from other kids with guns, but from adults with guns.
Are teachers saying he should have been permitted to bring a gun to school, or are they saying he doesn’t deserve to be expelled?
But you need to look at it from a teacher’s POV. Do they think a student should be able to use lethal force against another student to avoid getting beaten up? I don’t think so but that is what they are saying. And for those who aren’t teachers but have kids in school; how would they feel if their son or daughter was shot dead because they got into a fight at school?
I could have phrased that better. I meant should a kid be able to use a gun to protect himself from another kid who doesn’t have a gun.
They are saying he shouldn’t be expelled which is saying that he should have been permitted to bring a gun to school. If the rule is bring a gun to school get expelled, but they are saying the rule shouldn’t apply to him because he was justified in bringing it (to protect himself) then aren’t they saying he should have been permitted to bring the gun to school? Or at least that the school should not have not allowed him to bring a gun to school?
Teachers have some private facebook page or something where they discuss these things among themselves. However, any comments from teachers who say he should be expelled get deleted.
1 Like
Yes. There legal consequences and school consequences. I’m speaking to the school based ones. But it makes me think that some teachers, had they been in charge, would not have called the police when the gun was discovered.
Yes. There is a school which has decided to not have rules (it’s not the same school where the kid brought a gun). I’m not sure exactly how it will work. But the main idea is to eliminate the idea of punishment. Of course a school is not beyond the reach of the law but, it requires that the school will call the police when laws are broken and not handle things on their own. A kid punches a teacher; that teacher can always call the police but if the school will have a problem with her doing so, she might think twice.
The reason I bring these things up in this thread, since the issue of gun buybacks came up, is to simply point out how we ignore addressing the underlying behavior. Kids break rules so let’s just get rid of rules and problem solved.
A kid brings a gun to school. Oh well, let’s ignore the rules and also ignore the underlying behavior that a kid thought an appropriate response to avoid getting beaten up was shooting someone dead. Which says something about how that school addresses bullying and violence, that is, they don’t.
I doubt it. Hopefully, they think he should be able to use lethal force against another student if he legitimately(and reasonably) fears for his life.
If their kid did enough to justify his being shot dead, hopefully they’d accept that their son took second place in the competition he’d started.
Absolutely, if he is put in reasonable fear for his life.
I don’t know anything about this specific incident(beyond what you’ve told me), but not being expelled =/= being permitted. Maybe they think he was justified in doing so(should have been allowed); maybe they just think the reason he brought it is just enough that he should receive a lesser punishment.
This is already covered by the law. It’s a question of kids bringing guns to school for protection against non-lethal threats. We know kids will get into physical confrontations, it’s part of growing up, but these are not life and death incidents. It’s the inner city; if his life were in danger he would have been shot already and not beaten up. If a school had those kinds of incidents regularly occurring then that’s a sign of a different problem.
And if a child has a reasonable fear for his life then there are people he can go to. He shouldn’t have to take the law into his own hands and, given how children lack good judgement because they lack experience as well as not having fully developed brains, a child should not be allowed to make those judgements which come with the responsibility of gun ownership. We aren’t talking about a child shooting an intruder in his home.
That’s the thing. Are they saying he should have been permitted, in retrospect, or that the school shouldn’t not permit him. In other words, is the school saying, “we aren’t saying you can bring a gun but we aren’t saying you can’t”? Or, are they saying that bringing a gun is not justified but he believed he was justified and it’s all about the individual’s truth?
I strongly suspect that you would find examples proving they sometimes are, if you care to research it.
As I stated in what you quoted, maybe they’re just saying that he doesn’t deserve to be expelled. If someone doesn’t get the death penalty, that doesn’t mean anyone thinks what he did should be legal.